hitops

I always love these claims. The theory is that since universities staff and students are leftist, being a lefty must go with being educated. Obviously those employed by the university will be more leftist. Their entire financial livelihood depends on government largess. More power for gov means more funding and more importance for them. The story of naked self-interest is as old as the human race. It is also true that higher age and experience correlates to voting conservative. Those with zero experience applying themselves to the real life world of career and work (students), will tend to vote NDP. Many change once they get involved in the work-reward system of regular life. What nobody ever mentions is the type of degree, which get to your point about money. People who graduate with STEM degress are disproportionately conservative voters. Those degree have market demand, and command higher salaries. Those who's habit and value choices tend to result in success, tend to vote conservative. Unfortunately gender studies, native studies etc etc liberal arts degrees simply do not have value to others. We already have an oversupply of self-important blowhards with a social-politically trendy buzzword-based vocabulary, and relatively little demand. Ergo, articulate starbucks workers do not command value in the real world. In a nutshell, the harder the degree is, the more objectively evaluated the material, the more likely the graduate votes conservative. Also the more likely that same degree produces financial stability.

The recession has more to do with our deflating housing bubble than anything else. Housing construction is fading fast, and home building is a larger industry than energy and manufacturing combined. The ultimately root cause is the existence of the CMHC.

Most people vote for the party leader, this has been true for decades. The candidate MP is just wearing the jersey.

This actually explains a lot about how you think. I'm sure all 3 will bring out their shiniest ponies for you.

That's exactly the point. The other leaders manage to instantly smack down anyone going off messages. Harper not nearly as much. But of course it's Harper who's the dictator right?

True but it does explain why they don't like the conservatives. The majority never votes for any party. I'm not sure how stating the majority won't vote conservative is new information.

It was kind of funny watching the NDP's brains explode when they couldn't decide whether to yell about Harper being too controlling or not controlling enough over Warawa. In the end they decided to sort of do a bizarre mix of both, naturally contradicting themselves.

The NDP are polling strong because people don't like governments for more than a decade. It actually doesn't matter in the slightest what you do, after 8-10 years, simply being there that long will get you enough dislike to be tossed. Not that this is a bad thing, it's good for a democracy for the government to know their time is limited. The claims about the dictator etc is the usual nonsense hyperbole from those actually have no problem with a leader acting that way, they are just upset it is not their guy doing it. All the evidence from managing internal party affairs suggests the liberals and NDP would probably be worse.

The easy thing would be to post them (Warawa, Chong for starters). But honestly, what would be the point? It's not like they would change your mind. You will believe Harper is the tyrant, no manner how many backbench MP's have annoyed him with their issues after he let them speak freely (something that simply does not happen with the other parties). You are emotionally committed to believing that, I will not change your mind.

Can you rephrase this into something resembling a coherent paragraph with normal sentence structure? Can you explain how the link relates to your point in any way?

Except that the recorded, demonstrable facts prove otherwise. Harper often allows freedom to MP's, the others never do. You will of course ignore the readily available, public record of this.

But that's the whole point, let's say for example he is one. Your problem was with this problem of tyranny in Canadians politics. Yet by your own criteria, you will not vote for the lesser offender, the guy who allows his MP's more freedom than the others (Harper), rather you will vote for a greater offender (mulcair of trudeau). It makes no sense, which is how I know you don't really care about this issue, you just care about finding a reason to be against Harper. It is illogical to complain about the practices of a leader, and then follow this up by voting for a leader who promotes those same practices to a larger degree.

Unsurprisingly, this does not address the point I made at all. Whatever nonsense MP's say, has nothing to do with the issue you raise. It is a FACT, that Harper allows more free votes and more MP independence than the other parties by a large margin. The opposition parties specifically criticize him for not controlling his people, whenever one of them starts a discussion on something they feel is a waste of time.

I fail to see how he is the most insidious exploiter when he gives his MP's more far more independence and freedom than he other parties, and indeed more than any government in recent history. Nobody allows as many free votes as Harper, nor tolerates the Michael Chong's of his party, as Harper does. If your problem was truly that MP's are just government representatives, then the logical choice for you would be the CPC since they offer more freedom in that regard than the others. I suspect your reason has nothing to do with that, and so naturally you will find a way to ignore that reasoning. It was quite a sight to see last year when the NDP had to, at the same time, accuse Harper of being a tyrant and also accuse him of not controlling his MP's who they felt were allowed too much freedom. So which is it?

Being close to the ocean has exactly what to do with making policy for fishing? This is precisely the kind of non-logic, totally emotion-based nonsense that I associate with NDP voters.

I can't think of any reason why he should have to. Who says which is the 'official' debate? Nobody. A thousand different groups could host one, doesn't mean anyone has to go. By not going, he risks public opinion, but that can go either way.

That would just be a poll of people of people who tend to be online a lot.

Yay, you know how to say what the TV said.

That would necessitate cooperating. If they were capable of that, a much simpler and far cheaper (vs advertising) way to meet that goal would be to simply divide up the ridings and not compete with each other anywhere.

Great, my problem is that the answer from the opposition parties is that the scam is not big enough. Presumably they would offer me an even larger incentive for my vote. This is modern politics. Taking your money, pitting people against each other, and giving it back for your patronage.

As a doc, the problem is the slippery slope towards the state gaining the authority to force docs to provide the service to anyone who wants it. I never want to be involved in that, and for now I do not have to be. But at some point no doubt, somebody will say if the government pays you, they get to tell you what to do. It is a huge potential problem.

Sounds plausible on paper, no evidence it works in reality. Programming never allocates resources efficiency. Assuming it does is massive fallacy that assumes that a single or small group of people know how to make decision for millions. They don't. A few people cannot possible know the literally billions of pieces of information necessary to efficient allocate money. But the millions of people do contain those many pieces of information relevant to them, and act accordingly. The nearly infinite pieces of information which are relevant are known diffusely throughout society by individuals. Given the money (or better, not taking it in the first place) to individuals is far more efficient overall. Yes people with lower education and large section of the native population will blow it, but overall Canadians will more efficient use the resource than government every time. Lots of families struggle and can use the money in ways relevant to them. That doesn't mean daycare for everyone, or food for everyone, or more activity for everyone, or better school for everyone. It is a customized problem for every individual, by definition. Trying to force childcare spots on the country will just increase waste and distort prices for childcare.

The $15 a day daycare plan is enough reason on its own for me not to vote NDP. Having kids is a choice, and it's obscene to make me pay for your choice to have kids. Pay for your own damn kids, or don't have them. Not only should we not do $15 day a daycare, we should scrap the UCCB. (This is from a guy with 2 kids)

I'd say that one is numerically bigger, but this one is more blatant. Direct check in the mail, right before election. The sad part is the other parties problem with it, is that it is not big enough.

Try reading the entire post.